romellem

Joined 8 years ago

Karma

1,049

Submissions

124

Member since

Jul 12

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 month ago

> textbook designation.

Hardly. I invite you to [read the opinion][1], particularly the great pains the majority spends on wrangling the definition of the word "manipulate."

Basically, [FASCSA][2] says to denote a company is a "supply chain risk," the govt has to meet the law's rigorous definition of what a "significant" risk actually is. That definition contains a catch-all "or otherwise manipulate the function" of the thing at hand (in this case, Claude) at the very end.

The govt's whole argument is "Well Anthropic has admitted that it can technically "manipulate" the response, therefore its a significant risk, therefore we designate it as such."

The dissent gives an analogy:

> A library might post a sign saying, “Do not shout, loudly talk on the phone, play music, or otherwise disturb others.” The common understanding would be that the rule bans bringing a boom-box into the reading room with the volume turned on high but not listening to music with headphones set at a modest sound level—even though both constitute “playing music.”

It is as if the govt argued "ah ah, Anthropic played music on their headphones, they broke the rules! We therefore have the authority to ban them" and the majority insanely agrees. It is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that the "manipulate" clause is supposed to continue the idea of malicious or subversive manipulation that the whole section entails. The hand-waving the majority uses gives the whole game away.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=000001a0-d91e-d276-aff6-f97f3...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECURE_Technology_Act

Comment · 1 month ago

Opinion by Katsas and Rao. For those that don’t follow this regularly, those are two of the biggest Trump hacks on the bench.

I suspect this will be reversed en banc.

Anthropic’s argument is really clear and easy to understand: we can’t simultaneously be a supply chain risk and also be a company the DoD demands we change our policies so they can use our models without restrictions.

Comment · 1 month ago

It is too easy to write O(n^2) code using reduce, in fact I wrote an eslint rule to catch a common pattern I see other developers write.

- https://github.com/romellem/eslint-plugin-no-spread-in-reduc...

It catches code that looks like this:

    items.reduce((acc, item) => {
      return {
        ...acc,
        [item.id]: item
      };
    });

Comment · 3 months ago

Counterpoint: https://sophiebits.com/2026/06/25/there-are-no-lossless-tran...

Comment · 3 months ago

These are interesting results, but it reeks of LLM output. [ You made an interesting thing, why not describe it in your own words? I already read this all day.][1]

[1]: https://bsky.app/profile/danabra.mov/post/3mpyd3esthc2m

Comment · 6 months ago

Literally just had this same signal with PR review comments. Checked the status page, saw it was green, and (correctly) assumed “not for long!”

Comment · 7 months ago

Some of these missing checks were why Flow was an attractive choice when weighing [Flow vs Typescript][1].

For example, it wasn't until Typescript 2.0 that we got null checks!

- https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/t...

  function getLength(s: string): number {
    return s.length; //  Runtime crash if s is null/undefined
  }
  
  getLength(null); // TypeScript <2.0 would not error here